SURESH CHANDRA BHANSALI Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
R.S. Syal, A.M. -
(1.) THESE two cross-appeals--one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue--arise out of the order passed by CIT(A) on 20th Sept., 2005 in relation to the asst. yr. 2001-02.
(2.) First four grounds of the assessee's appeal were not pressed by the learned Authorised Representative. These, therefore, stand dismissed.
Fifth ground is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 15,97,334 made under Section 68 of the Act.
(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case arc that the assessee continued to derive income as sub-broker from dealing in shares in his proprietorship concern called as M/s S.S. Securities. Survey under Section 133A was carried out in the business premises of the assessee on 6th Nov., 2000. Cash book was found to have been written upto 31st Oct., 2000. After taking into account the incomings and outgoings from 1st Nov., 2000 to 6th Nov., 2000, the cash balance as per cash book was worked out at Rs. 23,069 as against cash on physical verification found at Rs. 20,031, thereby leaving shortage in cash at Rs. 3,038. In the course of survey, computerized cash book was examined and cash transactions amounting to Rs. 19,51,980 were noticed. Vide question No. 12 of the statement of the assessee recorded on 6th Nov., 2000, he was asked to explain the amount deposited in cash of Rs. 19,79,500 in the name of various customers. The assessee stated that he would submit explanation about the cash deposits. In response to summons under Section 131 the assessee attended the office on 7th Nov., 2000 and vide his letter of the same dated offered additional income of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of cash credits in the customers account totalling Rs. 19,79,500. Advance tax was also paid. Return of income was furnished on 29th Dec, 2001 at Rs. 1,93,270 in which the income of Rs. 10 lakhs surrendered vide letter dt. 7th Nov., 2000 was not declared. On being called upon to explain the reasons for not showing such surrendered income in the return, the assessee initially challenged the jurisdiction of the AO and also stated that the survey proceeding were carried out in an highly objectionable manner and surrender of Rs. 10 lakhs was not voluntary but was obtained forcibly. The AO examined the accounts one by one wherein cash was credited. For example, he considered the account of Smt. Yashoda Maheshwari w/o Shri Govind Maheshwari and noted cash credit entries of Rs. 3,25.000 spread over 10 dates. The assessee filed confirmation from this lady. She was, however, not produced despite request made by the AO. In her confirmatory letter dt. 8th Nov., 2000, Smt. Yashoda Maheshwari stated that the payments were made to the assessee in connection with the purchase and sales of shares. Since she was not assessed to tax and confirmation was without evidence of source of income, the AO held the cash credit of Rs. 3,25,900 appearing in her account as unexplained and accordingly made addition under Section 68. Similar position is prevailing about the other customers, the detail of which is as under:
The AO, therefore, made total addition of Rs. 15,97,334 under Section 68 of the Act. No relief was allowed in the first appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.